Tuesday, October 04, 2005

I am going to weigh in here and say that I don't know enough about Harriet Miers to know whether this was a good selection or not. However, I do agree with several points made on the Wall Street Journal editorial page today:

"We've always thought Mr. Bush should welcome an ideological Court fight, both because it would educate the public about the Constitutional issues at stake, and because he ultimately would have prevailed in putting another conservative jurist on the bench. In choosing Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush missed an opportunity for that kind of debate.

"He also missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying. The President could have selected from numerous qualified men and women--minority and white--who have spent their lives arguing for conservative principles on the bench or off. We're referring to the Michael Luttigs, the J. Harvie Wilkinsons, the Edith Joneses.

"Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don't join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn't healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works."